Let's someone was retarded and couldn't speak or live by himself. We'd take care of him because we're empathetic creatures, but why should he have value equivalent to a human being if he has the functioning capacity of an animal? What differentiates him from an animal?

"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."

At 3/2/2013 7:01:03 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:Let's say someone was retarded and couldn't speak or live by himself. We'd take care of him because we're empathetic creatures, but why should he have value equivalent to a human being if he has the functioning capacity of an animal? What differentiates him from an animal?

Sorry, typo.

"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."

At 3/2/2013 7:01:03 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:Let's someone was retarded and couldn't speak or live by himself. We'd take care of him because we're empathetic creatures, but why should he have value equivalent to a human being if he has the functioning capacity of an animal? What differentiates him from an animal?

Were all animals.

But I believe I understand what you are asking. And the best answer, in my opinion, is kinship. They are part of our species, they are one of our own, therefore they should be protected as we would do with anyone else.

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.

At 3/2/2013 7:01:03 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:Let's someone was retarded and couldn't speak or live by himself. We'd take care of him because we're empathetic creatures, but why should he have value equivalent to a human being if he has the functioning capacity of an animal? What differentiates him from an animal?

Can I be on the board that distinguishes exactly what does and does not constitute "cannot speak/live by himself?" There's a psychologist who just got a PhD who has a great set of criteria for that. I'd want to get in first, since some other psychologist with a PhD might impinge HIS nonsensical theory of what constitutes being unable to care/speak for yourself. Then it might as well be eugenics.

At 3/2/2013 7:01:03 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:Let's someone was retarded and couldn't speak or live by himself. We'd take care of him because we're empathetic creatures, but why should he have value equivalent to a human being if he has the functioning capacity of an animal? What differentiates him from an animal?

I could see where, for those who are personally connected to him, he'd be a very powerful perspective/priority-shifter - but I have a special affinity for motion in those departments but some might count that against him.

For "strangers" he might be a powerful reminder to appreciate their own circumstances, a little more...that might differentiate him from an animal.

Perhaps, to be fair, one should use a comparison to a handicapped animal, rather than just any animal?

If your time, to you,
Is worth savin',
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone.
For the times they are a-changin'. - Bob Dylan

Seriously though, human-centric view of rights and ethics all run into some variation of this problem. They can't account for people who are closer to animals in brain level, consciousness, etc. without just being completely arbitrary in their normative views.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 3/2/2013 7:01:03 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:Let's someone was retarded and couldn't speak or live by himself. We'd take care of him because we're empathetic creatures, but why should he have value equivalent to a human being if he has the functioning capacity of an animal? What differentiates him from an animal?

All human beings are animals and we are all interdependent, no man is an island, so to speak.

Are you really advocating placing degrees of value on human beings based on degrees of ability? Would you have IQ determine how much value a person has?

"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater

Seriously though, human-centric view of rights and ethics all run into some variation of this problem. They can't account for people who are closer to animals in brain level, consciousness, etc. without just being completely arbitrary in their normative views.

A non-human-centric view can also run into some interesting problems.

For instance, the rights of all animals will NOT include enfranchisement. Nobody is asking for pigs to be able to vote.

So how do we distinguish what organic organisms can vote or not? It's not a matter of whether the organism is CAPABLE of voting. If orangutangs learned to associate a certain number of bananas with a candidate, and figured out voting machines, then we still (I assume) not let them vote.

The argument can then be made "we shouldn't be arbitrary, if orangutangs can't vote because they do not fit criteria y, and criteria y can be lacking from a human (e.g. cognitive function), then any human lacking y should not be able to vote."

Depending on how you structure the "y criteria," you can effectively disenfranchise different sets of human voters.

The argument can be reversed for an even worse effect:

"We don't arrest one chimp if it forcibly has sex with another, even if we gave it full rights. In order to not be arbitrary, criteria y, which establishes who receives a right to not be raped by the same species, allows a set of humans to rape other humans without punishment."

At 3/2/2013 7:01:03 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:Let's someone was retarded and couldn't speak or live by himself. We'd take care of him because we're empathetic creatures, but why should he have value equivalent to a human being if he has the functioning capacity of an animal? What differentiates him from an animal?

All human beings are animals and we are all interdependent, no man is an island, so to speak.

Are you really advocating placing degrees of value on human beings based on degrees of ability? Would you have IQ determine how much value a person has?

No. But what if the disability is so acute the person cannot function as a human being anymore?

"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."

At 3/2/2013 7:01:03 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:Let's someone was retarded and couldn't speak or live by himself. We'd take care of him because we're empathetic creatures, but why should he have value equivalent to a human being if he has the functioning capacity of an animal? What differentiates him from an animal?

Can I be on the board that distinguishes exactly what does and does not constitute "cannot speak/live by himself?" There's a psychologist who just got a PhD who has a great set of criteria for that. I'd want to get in first, since some other psychologist with a PhD might impinge HIS nonsensical theory of what constitutes being unable to care/speak for yourself. Then it might as well be eugenics.

You're a funny guy, Wnope.

"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."

At 3/2/2013 7:01:03 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:Let's someone was retarded and couldn't speak or live by himself. We'd take care of him because we're empathetic creatures, but why should he have value equivalent to a human being if he has the functioning capacity of an animal? What differentiates him from an animal?

Realistically I would say that they don't have any more value than an animal, at least when it comes to morality, because your physical body isn't really the deciding factor for moral worth. But it's better for society and the law to consider them mostly equal so that a policy of treating them like animals isn't abused.

Seriously though, human-centric view of rights and ethics all run into some variation of this problem. They can't account for people who are closer to animals in brain level, consciousness, etc. without just being completely arbitrary in their normative views.

A non-human-centric view can also run into some interesting problems.

For instance, the rights of all animals will NOT include enfranchisement. Nobody is asking for pigs to be able to vote.

So how do we distinguish what organic organisms can vote or not? It's not a matter of whether the organism is CAPABLE of voting. If orangutangs learned to associate a certain number of bananas with a candidate, and figured out voting machines, then we still (I assume) not let them vote.

The argument can then be made "we shouldn't be arbitrary, if orangutangs can't vote because they do not fit criteria y, and criteria y can be lacking from a human (e.g. cognitive function), then any human lacking y should not be able to vote."

Depending on how you structure the "y criteria," you can effectively disenfranchise different sets of human voters.

The argument can be reversed for an even worse effect:

"We don't arrest one chimp if it forcibly has sex with another, even if we gave it full rights. In order to not be arbitrary, criteria y, which establishes who receives a right to not be raped by the same species, allows a set of humans to rape other humans without punishment."

I never really considered this point because my introduction to non-religious ethics was Singer's preference utilitarianism. I think it lends itself quite well to yer disenfranchisement scenario since animals have no vested interested in voting. That being said I'm no preference utilitarian, I just realize it's at least a defensible non human-centric ethic in regards to the above point made.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 3/2/2013 7:01:03 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:Let's someone was retarded and couldn't speak or live by himself. We'd take care of him because we're empathetic creatures, but why should he have value equivalent to a human being if he has the functioning capacity of an animal? What differentiates him from an animal?

First you must ask "what gives us our rights?" Many libertarians will say that rights lie within our ability to reason, and such any creature that cannot reason does not have rights. It doesn't matter how well you can reason, only if your brain is capable of reasoning at all (testing for that becomes a very dirty thing indeed, but we won't go there). If you answer, the government (a governmental piece of paper like a constitution or what have you), then it is whatever the government (and by extension, the people, assuming a democracy, or representative democracy) says goes. You may then ask "why?" and we can answer that we give others rights because we would like them to give us rights, under that oh so old principle of "due unto others..." and because we don't want to be judged by our IQs, we don't judge based on anyone else's.

At 3/2/2013 7:01:03 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:Let's someone was retarded and couldn't speak or live by himself. We'd take care of him because we're empathetic creatures, but why should he have value equivalent to a human being if he has the functioning capacity of an animal? What differentiates him from an animal?

First you must ask "what gives us our rights?" Many libertarians will say that rights lie within our ability to reason, and such any creature that cannot reason does not have rights. It doesn't matter how well you can reason, only if your brain is capable of reasoning at all (testing for that becomes a very dirty thing indeed, but we won't go there). If you answer, the government (a governmental piece of paper like a constitution or what have you), then it is whatever the government (and by extension, the people, assuming a democracy, or representative democracy) says goes. You may then ask "why?" and we can answer that we give others rights because we would like them to give us rights, under that oh so old principle of "due unto others..." and because we don't want to be judged by our IQs, we don't judge based on anyone else's.

sorry if that doesn't make sense, a bottle of wine may help the thoughts, but not so much of helping those thoughts get out to others. Actually, it may not help the thoughts... I'll stop now.

At 3/3/2013 12:54:42 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:More value =/= more human. Humans have a 0.3% level of genetic variance within our genome, so if you are within that variance, you are human -- no matter how retarded you are.

Technically, even if you're outside that variance you can still be Human, because the term "Human" refers to our genus, not our species (Sapien).

Human refers to our species. The genus is homo, and the species is homo sapien sapien. Homo sapien has a sub group, homo sapien sapien and homo sapien neaderthal. Funny species name, sapien means wise, and homo means man, so we named ourselves man wise wise. While neaderthal Is the name of a valley in Germany in which humanoid remains were found. It's origin is Greek, neo-ander meaning new man.

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.

At 3/2/2013 7:01:03 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:Let's someone was retarded and couldn't speak or live by himself. We'd take care of him because we're empathetic creatures, but why should he have value equivalent to a human being if he has the functioning capacity of an animal? What differentiates him from an animal?

All human beings are animals and we are all interdependent, no man is an island, so to speak.

Are you really advocating placing degrees of value on human beings based on degrees of ability? Would you have IQ determine how much value a person has?

No. But what if the disability is so acute the person cannot function as a human being anymore?

They are still a human being.

"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater

At 3/3/2013 12:54:42 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:More value =/= more human. Humans have a 0.3% level of genetic variance within our genome, so if you are within that variance, you are human -- no matter how retarded you are.

Technically, even if you're outside that variance you can still be Human, because the term "Human" refers to our genus, not our species (Sapien).

Human refers to our species. The genus is homo, and the species is homo sapien sapien. Homo sapien has a sub group, homo sapien sapien and homo sapien neaderthal. Funny species name, sapien means wise, and homo means man, so we named ourselves man wise wise. While neaderthal Is the name of a valley in Germany in which humanoid remains were found. It's origin is Greek, neo-ander meaning new man.

"In biological sciences, particularly anthropology and palaeontology, the common name for all members of the genus Homo is "human"." [1]

Hence, you can be a human without being a Sapien, because all Homo's are Human.

At 3/3/2013 12:54:42 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:More value =/= more human. Humans have a 0.3% level of genetic variance within our genome, so if you are within that variance, you are human -- no matter how retarded you are.

Technically, even if you're outside that variance you can still be Human, because the term "Human" refers to our genus, not our species (Sapien).

Human refers to our species. The genus is homo, and the species is homo sapien sapien. Homo sapien has a sub group, homo sapien sapien and homo sapien neaderthal. Funny species name, sapien means wise, and homo means man, so we named ourselves man wise wise. While neaderthal Is the name of a valley in Germany in which humanoid remains were found. It's origin is Greek, neo-ander meaning new man.

"In biological sciences, particularly anthropology and palaeontology, the common name for all members of the genus Homo is "human"." [1]

Hence, you can be a human without being a Sapien, because all Homo's are Human.

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.

At 3/3/2013 12:54:42 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:More value =/= more human. Humans have a 0.3% level of genetic variance within our genome, so if you are within that variance, you are human -- no matter how retarded you are.

Technically, even if you're outside that variance you can still be Human, because the term "Human" refers to our genus, not our species (Sapien).

Human refers to our species. The genus is homo, and the species is homo sapien sapien. Homo sapien has a sub group, homo sapien sapien and homo sapien neaderthal. Funny species name, sapien means wise, and homo means man, so we named ourselves man wise wise. While neaderthal Is the name of a valley in Germany in which humanoid remains were found. It's origin is Greek, neo-ander meaning new man.

"In biological sciences, particularly anthropology and palaeontology, the common name for all members of the genus Homo is "human"." [1]

Hence, you can be a human without being a Sapien, because all Homo's are Human.

At 3/3/2013 12:54:42 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:More value =/= more human. Humans have a 0.3% level of genetic variance within our genome, so if you are within that variance, you are human -- no matter how retarded you are.

Technically, even if you're outside that variance you can still be Human, because the term "Human" refers to our genus, not our species (Sapien).

Human refers to our species. The genus is homo, and the species is homo sapien sapien. Homo sapien has a sub group, homo sapien sapien and homo sapien neaderthal. Funny species name, sapien means wise, and homo means man, so we named ourselves man wise wise. While neaderthal Is the name of a valley in Germany in which humanoid remains were found. It's origin is Greek, neo-ander meaning new man.

"In biological sciences, particularly anthropology and palaeontology, the common name for all members of the genus Homo is "human"." [1]

Hence, you can be a human without being a Sapien, because all Homo's are Human.

Do you not know what "extant" means? Your quote is saying that 'we are the only species of human not extinct', not that 'non-Sapiens can't be Human'.

Homo = Human.

Wow......

Do you know what the word implications means?

This sentence clearly references human as a specific term for homo sapien sapien. The entire page is all about homo sapien sapien, and the page itself is titled human. It is not a general page about all those in the homo genus. So if human is a synonym for homo, then why does the human wiki page only talk about homo sapien sapien, and not about all the species in that genus?

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.

At 3/3/2013 12:54:42 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:More value =/= more human. Humans have a 0.3% level of genetic variance within our genome, so if you are within that variance, you are human -- no matter how retarded you are.

Technically, even if you're outside that variance you can still be Human, because the term "Human" refers to our genus, not our species (Sapien).

Human refers to our species. The genus is homo, and the species is homo sapien sapien. Homo sapien has a sub group, homo sapien sapien and homo sapien neaderthal. Funny species name, sapien means wise, and homo means man, so we named ourselves man wise wise. While neaderthal Is the name of a valley in Germany in which humanoid remains were found. It's origin is Greek, neo-ander meaning new man.

"In biological sciences, particularly anthropology and palaeontology, the common name for all members of the genus Homo is "human"." [1]

Hence, you can be a human without being a Sapien, because all Homo's are Human.

Do you not know what "extant" means? Your quote is saying that 'we are the only species of human not extinct', not that 'non-Sapiens can't be Human'.

Homo = Human.

Wow......

Do you know what the word implications means?

This sentence clearly references human as a specific term for homo sapien sapien. The entire page is all about homo sapien sapien, and the page itself is titled human. It is not a general page about all those in the homo genus. So if human is a synonym for homo, then why does the human wiki page only talk about homo sapien sapien, and not about all the species in that genus?

...

I'll tell you what, how about you send me a debate challenge and we'll sort this matter out like gentlemen.

At 3/3/2013 12:54:42 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:More value =/= more human. Humans have a 0.3% level of genetic variance within our genome, so if you are within that variance, you are human -- no matter how retarded you are.

Technically, even if you're outside that variance you can still be Human, because the term "Human" refers to our genus, not our species (Sapien).

Human refers to our species. The genus is homo, and the species is homo sapien sapien. Homo sapien has a sub group, homo sapien sapien and homo sapien neaderthal. Funny species name, sapien means wise, and homo means man, so we named ourselves man wise wise. While neaderthal Is the name of a valley in Germany in which humanoid remains were found. It's origin is Greek, neo-ander meaning new man.

"In biological sciences, particularly anthropology and palaeontology, the common name for all members of the genus Homo is "human"." [1]

Hence, you can be a human without being a Sapien, because all Homo's are Human.

Do you not know what "extant" means? Your quote is saying that 'we are the only species of human not extinct', not that 'non-Sapiens can't be Human'.

Homo = Human.

Wow......

Do you know what the word implications means?

This sentence clearly references human as a specific term for homo sapien sapien. The entire page is all about homo sapien sapien, and the page itself is titled human. It is not a general page about all those in the homo genus. So if human is a synonym for homo, then why does the human wiki page only talk about homo sapien sapien, and not about all the species in that genus?

...

I'll tell you what, how about you send me a debate challenge and we'll sort this matter out like gentlemen.

No thank you. I don't care that much about this.

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.

At 3/3/2013 12:54:42 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:More value =/= more human. Humans have a 0.3% level of genetic variance within our genome, so if you are within that variance, you are human -- no matter how retarded you are.

Technically, even if you're outside that variance you can still be Human, because the term "Human" refers to our genus, not our species (Sapien).

Human refers to our species. The genus is homo, and the species is homo sapien sapien. Homo sapien has a sub group, homo sapien sapien and homo sapien neaderthal. Funny species name, sapien means wise, and homo means man, so we named ourselves man wise wise. While neaderthal Is the name of a valley in Germany in which humanoid remains were found. It's origin is Greek, neo-ander meaning new man.

"In biological sciences, particularly anthropology and palaeontology, the common name for all members of the genus Homo is "human"." [1]

Hence, you can be a human without being a Sapien, because all Homo's are Human.

Do you not know what "extant" means? Your quote is saying that 'we are the only species of human not extinct', not that 'non-Sapiens can't be Human'.

Homo = Human.

Wow......

Do you know what the word implications means?

This sentence clearly references human as a specific term for homo sapien sapien. The entire page is all about homo sapien sapien, and the page itself is titled human. It is not a general page about all those in the homo genus. So if human is a synonym for homo, then why does the human wiki page only talk about homo sapien sapien, and not about all the species in that genus?

...

I'll tell you what, how about you send me a debate challenge and we'll sort this matter out like gentlemen.

No thank you. I don't care that much about this.

What a coincidence, that's the same excuse literally everyone has ever given me to justify cowering away on an issue.

At 3/3/2013 12:54:42 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:More value =/= more human. Humans have a 0.3% level of genetic variance within our genome, so if you are within that variance, you are human -- no matter how retarded you are.

Technically, even if you're outside that variance you can still be Human, because the term "Human" refers to our genus, not our species (Sapien).

Human refers to our species. The genus is homo, and the species is homo sapien sapien. Homo sapien has a sub group, homo sapien sapien and homo sapien neaderthal. Funny species name, sapien means wise, and homo means man, so we named ourselves man wise wise. While neaderthal Is the name of a valley in Germany in which humanoid remains were found. It's origin is Greek, neo-ander meaning new man.

"In biological sciences, particularly anthropology and palaeontology, the common name for all members of the genus Homo is "human"." [1]

Hence, you can be a human without being a Sapien, because all Homo's are Human.

Do you not know what "extant" means? Your quote is saying that 'we are the only species of human not extinct', not that 'non-Sapiens can't be Human'.

Homo = Human.

Wow......

Do you know what the word implications means?

This sentence clearly references human as a specific term for homo sapien sapien. The entire page is all about homo sapien sapien, and the page itself is titled human. It is not a general page about all those in the homo genus. So if human is a synonym for homo, then why does the human wiki page only talk about homo sapien sapien, and not about all the species in that genus?

...

I'll tell you what, how about you send me a debate challenge and we'll sort this matter out like gentlemen.

No thank you. I don't care that much about this.

What a coincidence, that's the same excuse literally everyone has ever given me to justify cowering away on an issue.

I swear, forum-warriors are God's punishment for my past sins.

I assure you, it's no coincidence. I am we'll aware that I am wrong, but I am trying to save face by quitting while I'm ahead.

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.

At 3/2/2013 7:01:03 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:Let's someone was retarded and couldn't speak or live by himself. We'd take care of him because we're empathetic creatures, but why should he have value equivalent to a human being if he has the functioning capacity of an animal? What differentiates him from an animal?

All human beings are animals and we are all interdependent, no man is an island, so to speak.

Are you really advocating placing degrees of value on human beings based on degrees of ability? Would you have IQ determine how much value a person has?

No. But what if the disability is so acute the person cannot function as a human being anymore?

They are still a human being.

Very well, if you feel like playing semantics. But why do "human beings" have value in the first place?

"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."

At 3/2/2013 7:01:03 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:Let's someone was retarded and couldn't speak or live by himself. We'd take care of him because we're empathetic creatures, but why should he have value equivalent to a human being if he has the functioning capacity of an animal? What differentiates him from an animal?

All human beings are animals and we are all interdependent, no man is an island, so to speak.

Are you really advocating placing degrees of value on human beings based on degrees of ability? Would you have IQ determine how much value a person has?

No. But what if the disability is so acute the person cannot function as a human being anymore?

They are still a human being.

Very well, if you feel like playing semantics. But why do "human beings" have value in the first place?

If you really don't understand why human beings should be valued then something fundamental is missing, and frankly, I don't think it is something that can just be explained.

"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater

At 3/2/2013 7:01:03 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:Let's someone was retarded and couldn't speak or live by himself. We'd take care of him because we're empathetic creatures, but why should he have value equivalent to a human being if he has the functioning capacity of an animal? What differentiates him from an animal?

All human beings are animals and we are all interdependent, no man is an island, so to speak.

Are you really advocating placing degrees of value on human beings based on degrees of ability? Would you have IQ determine how much value a person has?

No. But what if the disability is so acute the person cannot function as a human being anymore?

They are still a human being.

Very well, if you feel like playing semantics. But why do "human beings" have value in the first place?

If you really don't understand why human beings should be valued then something fundamental is missing, and frankly, I don't think it is something that can just be explained.

At 3/2/2013 7:01:03 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:Let's someone was retarded and couldn't speak or live by himself. We'd take care of him because we're empathetic creatures, but why should he have value equivalent to a human being if he has the functioning capacity of an animal? What differentiates him from an animal?

All human beings are animals and we are all interdependent, no man is an island, so to speak.

Are you really advocating placing degrees of value on human beings based on degrees of ability? Would you have IQ determine how much value a person has?

No. But what if the disability is so acute the person cannot function as a human being anymore?

They are still a human being.

Very well, if you feel like playing semantics. But why do "human beings" have value in the first place?

If you really don't understand why human beings should be valued then something fundamental is missing, and frankly, I don't think it is something that can just be explained.